Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

Obama: "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls

Question:

Are you willing to give up some of your privacy by allowing a computer to record the patterns of your international phone calls, realizing the potential for abuse, in order not to have some doctrinaire a-hole, for example, fly another airliner into another building?

@Death Star - Those that listen to talk radio are often (not always) angry because we know what's going on out there. It's not the drivel spoon fed to us by the MMM or the cutesy infotainment that some deem news as found on the Daily Show. The radio show hosts actually delve deeper in the issues than one can ever hope to get from supposed "real" journalists that work for the networks. Unfortunately, what we find out about our various elected officials is often disgusting and the legislation they pass is equally garbage usually resulting in more taxes and a more bloated government that protects the interests of the few.

As for just giving the government the means to do whatever it wants as long as the ends justify the means, I have a quote for you from one of our famous forefathers.

There is a reason we have a Constitution. It's not just some old document to studied in history classes, but it protects the citizens of this country from tyrannical rule and abuse from those that govern us. There is a reason that we have a president and not a king or a dictator. So I say no to just giving upour privacy. Maybe you would like to revisit the whole SOPA thing or maybe and implement a killswitch on your internet (ala Iran) or you like drones flying above your head, but I don't. I am not a prisoner/criminal and nor should I be treated like one. It's laziness on the part of the government to not do a better job tracking down those that are truly a threat to this country rather than collecting info on everyone.

As far as the whole Bush started it... finger pointing crap. I like this guy's response of BurtonM in the comments section from the National Post article on the subject:

"It is true the program started under Bush but at that time it was limited to suspected individuals and the secret court (FISC) warranted each case.

Obama has expanded the program into a dragnet, basically just collecting everything without warrants, analyzing it and storing it at massive data centers to use in case of future terrorist threats emerge (or against groups that oppose him like the tea party)

bush was no conservative he was a RINO but he was nowhere near as tyrannical as Obama has become."

@Death Star - Those that listen to talk radio are often (not always) angry because we know what's going on out there. It's not the drivel spoon fed to us by the MMM or the cutesy infotainment that some deem news as found on the Daily Show. The radio show hosts actually delve deeper in the issues than one can ever hope to get from supposed "real" journalists that work for the networks. Unfortunately, what we find out about our various elected officials is often disgusting and the legislation they pass is equally garbage usually resulting in more taxes and a more bloated government that protects the interests of the few.

As for just giving the government the means to do whatever it wants as long as the ends justify the means, I have a quote for you from one of our famous forefathers.

There is a reason we have a Constitution. It's not just some old document to studied in history classes, but it protects the citizens of this country from tyrannical rule and abuse from those that govern us. There is a reason that we have a president and not a king or a dictator. So I say no to just giving upour privacy. Maybe you would like to revisit the whole SOPA thing or maybe and implement a killswitch on your internet (ala Iran) or you like drones flying above your head, but I don't. I am not a prisoner/criminal and nor should I be treated like one. It's laziness on the part of the government to not do a better job tracking down those that are truly a threat to this country rather than collecting info on everyone.

As far as the whole Bush started it... finger pointing crap. I like this guy's response of BurtonM in the comments section from the National Post article on the subject:

"It is true the program started under Bush but at that time it was limited to suspected individuals and the secret court (FISC) warranted each case.

Obama has expanded the program into a dragnet, basically just collecting everything without warrants, analyzing it and storing it at massive data centers to use in case of future terrorist threats emerge (or against groups that oppose him like the tea party)

bush was no conservative he was a RINO but he was nowhere near as tyrannical as Obama has become."

I wouldn't worry about some libs opinion of talk radio or fox. They don't listen or watch. Their only exposure to it is when they go on their far left sites like media matters and find their skewed opinions. The losers on media matters listen to talk radio all day everyday and try to take everything that is said out of context.

Obama: "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls

Originally Posted by cdz12250

Question:

Are you willing to give up some of your privacy by allowing a computer to record the patterns of your international phone calls, realizing the potential for abuse, in order not to have some doctrinaire a-hole, for example, fly another airliner into another building?

There's a wonderful line from Senator Frank Church in the 1970s: "Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesnít matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

As far as the whole Bush started it... finger pointing crap. I like this guy's response of BurtonM in the comments section from the National Post article on the subject:

"It is true the program started under Bush but at that time it was limited to suspected individuals and the secret court (FISC) warranted each case.

Obama has expanded the program into a dragnet, basically just collecting everything without warrants, analyzing it and storing it at massive data centers to use in case of future terrorist threats emerge (or against groups that oppose him like the tea party)

Please.

Here's an article from 2005:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States, the officials said. Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Are you willing to give up some of your privacy by allowing a computer to record the patterns of your international phone calls, realizing the potential for abuse, in order not to have some doctrinaire a-hole, for example, fly another airliner into another building?

I would not give up my privacy for anything.
Further, despite all this 'collecting data', eves dropping etc there still will be terrorist attacks (see Boston). This whole notion "give up some or all of your privacy for safety" is nothing but a scape goat for 'control'. Only the weak and scared fools fall for it.

The Xbox One (the next entertainment system from Microsoft, the NSA's first partner in this PRISM deal) comes installed with an "always on" feature and the Kinect, which is essentially a video camera and sensor that receives visual, audio and kinetic data from everything going on in the room. The "always on" feature requires that the xbox MUST be connected to the internet in order to function. If you go more than 24 hours without it being connected, you cannot play games on it or do anything else with it.

Now just imagine what kind of data the NSA could pick up with software and hardware like this. They essentially have a live stream into your living room. Would you be OK with THAT level of privacy intrusion?

Don't be naive, they WILL collect this kind of data if it is available.

Re: Obama: "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls

Originally Posted by phins_4_ever

I would not give up my privacy for anything.
Further, despite all this 'collecting data', eves dropping etc there still will be terrorist attacks (see Boston). This whole notion "give up some or all of your privacy for safety" is nothing but a scape goat for 'control'. Only the weak and scared fools fall for it.

We don't always agree on everything but you are absolutely spot on here. I am in total agreement.